Angela Codina / Libelous Commentator

NJ, United States

I disagree with the latest unidentified person who calls himself “almost victim” and who has taken the liberty to write the March 30th review on Codina International making reference to the link which has been removed from Google. I am an attorney called to the bars of New Jersey and Virginia and work with Angela Codina and Codina International. I find these disparaging remarks to constitute very serious libel and defamation against both the company Codina International and Ms. Codina and urge the Complaints Board to remove immediately both of these unidentified individuals` reviews as a legal action is being initiated against both the Board and its editors and the two unidentified individuals cited here for making libelous and defamatory statements.

Preliminarily, it should be noted that neither of these two gentlemen have identified themselves (I assume the person who commented on March 30th is also a male). The first commentator gave his first name as Greg and only in response to Mr. Miller`s comments. And although he claims to be a victim of Codina International, he does not specify in which way he was victimized or what his case consisted of. Instead he simply makes reference to third-party articles or sites to bolster his claim. This is disingenuous at the very least.

Moreover, to say the retainer agreement entered into with Codina International is worthless and has no legal status in a court of law is absolutely false. If this person was in fact victimized or wronged he would have recourse to a court of law where he could sue for breach of contract. For him to claim otherwise is because he knows very well that he has no valid claim to pursue and that is why he vents his frustration by posting comments on this site.

I know Ms. Codina to be a very honest, responsible and professional individual, and if Mr. Greg is serious about resolving any alleged dispute between himself and the company, he should speak to her or me instead of writing malicious and anonymous comments. That is the only civil and proper way to handle these types of matters.
The second most recent commentator is also anonymous and his slanderous comments should have been edited and not printed by the editors of this site. Firstly, he has never been a client of Codina International and so for him to direct readers to the defamatory site with Spitzer`s article and then to recommend a class action suit is truly unbelievable. It certainly smells of a jealous competitor to me.

Secondly, and as already indicated in Mr. Miller`s earlier comments, the link which the commentator refers to and the article which he reprints in his comments are outdated and false because Ms. Codina was successful in that lawsuit and the link and article have since been removed from the internet and Google following a U.S. $600 million dollar lawsuit launched by Codina International and Ms. Codina in the United States District Court. In these circumstances, the reprinting of the article and the reference to the link constitute actual malice towards Ms. Codina and Codina International. These commentators and the editors of the Complaints Board were well aware of the record of the evidence in favor of Ms. Codina and yet, recklessly disregarded these facts.

I would also like to remind this latest commentator that even though he believes he is posting his comments anonymously, his identity and that of the Greg commentator will eventually have to be disclosed in the upcoming lawsuit against the Complaints Board and the two of them. Indeed, the Complaints Board sets out its disclosure policy on its site and warns complainants that “ may disclose information about its users if required to do so by law or in the good faith belief that such disclosure is reasonably necessary to:
• Respond to a legal process (e.g., subpoenas, court orders).
• Respond to claims that a listing or content violates the rights of third parties.
• Enforce our Terms of Use.
• Protect the rights, property or personal safety of, its users or the general public.”

The Complaints Board also provides a libel notice on its site warning complainants that “[i]n case if a court defines that a consumer complaint constitutes libel or defamation, the mentioned consumer would be held legally responsible for damages to the reputation of the business, mentioned in complaint.” Nor should the editors of the Complaints Board and owners of this site think they are exempt from any legal liability themselves because they are not.

Please govern yourselves accordingly.

James J. McGuire Jr., Esq.

Post your comment